five-year plan for curriculum review · curriculum review and renewal plan for ... the evaluation...

Curriculum Review and Renewal Plan for Continuous Improvement

2010-2015

West Hartford Public Schools Office of Instruction, Curriculum and Assessment 50 South Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06107

860-561-6631 http://www.whps.org/curriculum/Curriculum.htm

1 02/25/14

http://www.whps.org/curriculum/Curriculum.htm

Board of Education

Bruce Putterman, Chairperson Elin Katz, Vice Chairperson

Naogan Ma Mark Overmyer-Velazquez

Jay Sarzen Terry Schmitt

Mark Zydanowicz

Administration

Dr. Karen L. List, Superintendent Dr. Nancy DePalma, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment

Tom Moore, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Richard Ledwith, Executive Director of Human Resources

Paul Vicinus, Jr., Director of Secondary Education Kerry Jones, Director of Elementary Education

Glenn McGrath, Director of Pupil Services

Acknowledgments to Dr. Joan Kerelejza, former Director of Curriculum, WHPS and

Dr. Steven A. Wlodarczyk, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, South Windsor Public Schools for their insights and guidance

in the development of the original document.

Additional thanks to Dr. David Squires for his contributions on aligned and balanced curriculum for the 10/01/10 revision.

West Hartford Public Schools 50 South Main Street

West Hartford, CT 06107 (860) 561-6600 www.whps.org

2 02/25/14

Table of Contents Mission Statement/Our Beliefs……………………………………………………………………...4 Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Vision/Goals………………………………………5 Model of Continuous Improvement………………………………………………………………..6 I. The Purpose and Focus of Curriculum Development and Review/Renewal…...7 II. The Curriculum Review and Continuous Improvement Process………………….10 The Rubric for Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum…………………………………………..14 III. Curriculum Leadership and Review Structure………………………………………….18 CPDC…………………………………………………………………………………………….18 Vertical Teams………………………………………………………………………………….19 IV. Data Collection/Reporting Forms for CPDC Review………………………………24 V. Related Series Review Process……………………………………………………………….34 VI. CPDC Presentation and the Role of CPDC…………………………………………….55 Appendices A – Criteria ……………………………………………………………………………………………..60 B – Long Range Curriculum/Program Planning Calendar………………………………..62 Review of Services Planning Calendar C – Effective Teaching Strategies based on Marzano’s meta-analysis of 35 years of educational research……………………………………………………………..64 D – Assessment Defined ……………………………………...…………………………………….66 E– Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………..71

3 02/25/14

4 02/25/14

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

MMiissssiioonn The mission framework illustrated above provides focus, direction and guidance for issues of curriculum, instruction and assessment at the district, school and department levels. The framework is designed to guide the work of the school system and shape our leadership and teaching actions in support of that mission. The subsequent vision, goals, actions and processes are in support of this mission.

VViissiioonn High expectations for all learners,

rigorous and relevant curriculum, and dynamic teaching inspire a passion for learning and help all students to realize their potential.

CCuurrrriiccuulluumm GGooaallss To continuously strengthen curriculum, instruction and assessment to enable students to be:

• intellectually, physically and emotionally healthy; • globally competitive; • engaged, responsible and informed citizens; • college and career ready; and • able to demonstrate persistence and effort, a passion for lifelong learning.

The District Model of Continuous Improvement (see below) is the means to support the accomplishment of these goals. The Model of Continuous Improvement requires teams of teachers and administrators to examine student performance data, to design and implement instruction, and monitor results. The curriculum review process engages in a parallel process of continuous improvement. It includes the examination of curriculum, driven by student results over time, to determine what students should know, be able to do and understand, when it should be taught, and when and how it will be assessed. The results of the implementation of the curriculum, including student and parent perceptual data, provide the necessary “results” to drive on-going curriculum review, revision, and renewal. This process is defined in greater detail below.

5 02/25/14

6 02/25/14

II.. TThhee PPuurrppoossee aanndd FFooccuuss ooff CCuurrrriiccuulluumm DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd RReevviieeww//RReenneewwaall

Curriculum development and renewal in the West Hartford Public Schools is a dynamic and continuous process in which the school system plans, carries out and evaluates educational programs in a systematic and data-driven way. This process helps ensure that the curricula expectations for the school system and its schools are rigorous, relevant and public. In addition, it guarantees that our curriculum is aligned with state and national standards. Preparing and inspiring students to realize their potential and to prepare them to be ready to enhance our global community is the primary focus of the work. History and Background West Hartford has had a long history of curriculum review and renewal. The original five-year review process was grounded in the following research and best practices. Five characteristics of an effective curriculum are that it is meaningful, coherent, articulated, aligned, and promotes high standards for all students1 (see below).

A meaningful curriculum focuses on fundamental knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a changing society and world. It may derive its goals from essential concepts of the disciplines, such as the Bill of Rights, algebraic equations or timeless issues in great literature, or from basic concepts for democratic living, or from basic skills and processes (or from all three). A coherent curriculum provides opportunities at each level to learn and relearn fundamental knowledge and skills. In an articulated curriculum, learning at different grade levels is appropriately sequenced and related. An aligned curriculum connects the written curriculum, what is taught and learned in classrooms, and assessment practices. High standards for student learning include public knowledge of learning goals and sharing criteria and models of success. 2

1 Glatthorn, Allan A., Carr, Judy F., Harris, Douglas, E. (2001). Curriculum Handbook. (p.6), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2 Glatthorn, Allan A., Carr, Judy F., Harris, Douglas, E. (2001). Curriculum Handbook. (pp.6-8), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Books of

x 2 2 2

Great Bill Rights

+ y =z

Meaning Coherence

High Standards

Models Effective

Curriculum

Articulation

Grade 2 Grade 1

Written

Tested Taught

Grade 3

7 02/25/14

This five-year review process required a cycle of review that included a year of evaluation or preparation for review, the year of the review itself, followed by three years of implementation. While a five-year cycle is practicable, it is not adequate in its responsiveness to the continuously changing global community or expectations. In addition, the five-year process alone is not sufficient in its response to the immediate needs of students and teachers alike as they implement the curriculum. Since the curriculum should be based on the mission, goals and needs of the school district, state and national standards, which are linked to state assessments as well as the aspirations of the community, it is imperative that the review process align itself with the district expectations for continuous improvement. Therefore, the five-year process will now be supplemented with annual vertical analysis and program review. In addition, the new mission framework as well as current research in curriculum development, demand an expansion of the criteria to better inform the review process. These expectations are clearly defined in the mission and will shape the work of the curriculum review process. Therefore, during the development and review of a curriculum it is important that the following questions be considered:

- To what extent have we provided rigorous and relevant curriculum? Is the curriculum comprehensive, including academics, arts, and personal wellness? Is the curriculum inquiry-based? Does the curriculum provide for 21st century skills, including: Problem solving? Communication? Critical thinking and adaptability? - To what extent does the curriculum support high expectations for all learners?

Does the curriculum cultivate student interests, strengths and abilities? Does the curriculum apply varied styles and approaches? Is there evidence of an understanding of preferred strategies? Does the curriculum meet individual needs?

- To what extent does the curriculum support dynamic teaching? Does the teaching promote a student-centered approach? Is the teaching skillful? Is the teaching engaging? Is the teaching data-driven? Is the teaching reflective and collaborative? Is the teaching personalized?

These overarching questions, derived from the mission framework, guide the curriculum review process. With the mission in mind, the Curriculum Leadership, including department supervisors, curriculum specialists, principals, central office staff and members of the Curriculum and Professional Development Council, integrated and aligned 1) the long standing curriculum expectations/research that guides the five-year review process, 2) our current mission framework, as well as 3) current research in curriculum design and review. Additionally, they derived a contemporary definition of high quality curriculum built around five indicators that form the foundation of the review process: (i) Content Skills and Understandings, (ii) Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development, (iii) Assured Learning Experiences, (iv) Assessment/Data, and (v) Curriculum Alignment.

Curriculum Development.

8 02/25/14

IIII.. TThhee CCuurrrriiccuulluumm RReevviieeww aanndd CCoonnttiinnuuoouuss IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrroocceessss

The curriculum review process has been revitalized for the purposes of focusing on curriculum areas annually as well as a more public sharing of progress every five years as part of the process of renewal. The team structures to support this process are discussed later. The process of continuous review requires an analysis of the curriculum in relation to the Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum. Those indicators serve as the key criteria from which teams judge the progress of development and determine plans for improvement and renewal. CCoonnttiinnuuoouuss RReevviieeww Annually, at the start of the school year, K-12 discipline-based vertical teams meet to analyze curriculum relative to the Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum. A vertical team represents a cross section of grades, levels and courses from across the school system. They consider evidence and data related to content, skills and understandings; map, unit or guide development; curriculum alignment; assured learning experiences; and assessments/data collection. They then use the analysis of the indicators to shape and determine both short term and long term goals, to recommend ad hoc work groups, and to guide departmental development plans. In order to continue to evaluate our effective implementation of content, skills and understandings across the disciplines, the curriculum vertical teams and various departments annually evaluate the progress of the implementation of the curriculum. The evaluation of curriculum is also a continuous process, where curriculum is continuously assessed and examined to determine what needs improvement, alignment or balancing. The criteria and related rubric for curriculum development are listed below. Curriculum Leadership has defined three levels of development:

1. High Priority: indicates that this area of curriculum development needs significant work in order to become rigorous and relevant. It is considered a priority in order to meet our curriculum expectations. It may be that the area has new and emerging standards, changes in the field, or there were a range of constraints that were not appropriate to accomplish the work at the time of the last review. However, it indicates an area in need of significant curriculum work.

2. Mid-level Priority: indicates development that is emerging. It is on the path to meeting our curriculum expectations; however, the work is still emerging or evolving. Drafts may be in place, or work is in progress, however it does not yet fully meet our criteria and expectations.

3. Low-level Priority: indicates that the development is highly evident and that the work related to the criteria is “complete and comprehensive;” however, part of being complete is recognizing the importance of continuous review and “tweaking” of the work. For this level, the majority of the work is in place.

The Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum include:

1. Content, Skills and Understandings: What students are expected to know, understand and are able to do is clearly defined and is meaningful, focusing on fundamental and relevant knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a global community and reflect high expectations for all students.

2. Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development: The written documents per grade include key required components, including the scope or breadth of material (how much of what is to be taught should be taught at that particular level within that particular context) and the sequence (the succession of when the information is presented) and how (i.e., spiral, systematic, selective emphasis),

9 02/25/14

providing an articulated curriculum across the grades.

3. Assured Learning Experiences: Key cognitive learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) that help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning or tasks that create authentic experiences for all students to demonstrate proficiency of the grade level content and understandings are specified. These tasks promote coherence and alignment across the grades/courses and reflect high expectations for all students.

4. Assessment/Data: Given the need to measure content knowledge, process skills and understandings, the specified assessments provide the means to determine the level of student learning as delineated in the curriculum documents. Both formative and summative assessments are specified, aligned and represent high expectations.

5. Curriculum Alignment: There is a clear match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local and state assessments) that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices, creating coherence within and across the grades.

What follows is a more elaborated definition of each.

1. Content, Skills and Understandings: What students are expected to know, understand and are able to do is clearly defined and is meaningful, focusing on fundamental and relevant knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a global community and reflect high expectations for all students.

The district/school/department mission is effectively reflected in the selection of content and skills. There is clear and compelling evidence that state and/or national standards were used and/or prioritized to determine what students should know, understand and be able to do. A common language is articulated accurately and it reflects accepted practice within the discipline and/or current educational research and promotes the work of the discipline. Effective 21st century skills are integrated (embedded) throughout the curriculum in order to promote college and career readiness (flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility), including problem solving, communication (communicating clearly, collaborating with others), critical thinking (reasoning effectively, using systems thinking, making judgments and decisions), and adaptability. The specified content, skills and understandings provide opportunities to have student learning extend beyond the curriculum.

2. Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development: The written documents per grade include key required components, including the scope or breadth of material (how much of what is to be taught should be taught at that particular level within that particular context) and the sequence (the succession of when the information is presented) and how (i.e., spiral, systematic, selective emphasis), providing an articulated curriculum across the grades.

Comprehensive curriculum maps, units and pacing guides that define common expectations by grade level and course have been developed across the discipline. Maps are used by teachers to guide and sequence instruction where key content knowledge and skills, assessments and assured instructional experiences are evident. The units of study, with priority standards and supporting standards aligned with and “unwrapped,” are clearly identified. The units of study also detail the big ideas, essential questions, pre- and post-assessments, key vocabulary, interdisciplinary connections, 21st century learning skills, learning activities, and

10 02/25/14

high-impact instructional strategies that address differentiation, enrichment and intervention (Ainsworth, 2010). The curriculum is balanced (i.e., appropriate amounts per grade, appropriate across the grades and increasingly rigorous—content is not over or under emphasized). A pacing guide is used by teachers for implementing the units of study to ensure all priority standards are taught, assessed, re-taught, and reassessed over the course of the school year (Ainsworth). The district “Rigorous and Relevant Unit Design Expectations” (see Appendix A) have been used to review the existing units and those expectations are reflected in the unit design work.

3. Assured Learning Experiences: Key cognitive learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) that help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning or tasks that create authentic experiences for all students to demonstrate proficiency of the grade level content and understandings are specified. These tasks promote coherence and alignment across the grades/courses and reflect high expectations for all students.

The assured learning experiences are specified in the curriculum, including learning experiences that differentiate, bringing meaning to the content, standards and skills. Assured learning experiences employ best practices and reflect effective teaching strategies and dynamic teaching that is student-centered, skillful, data-driven, engaging, reflective, collaborative and personalized. Assured learning experiences are aligned with curriculum and assessments, reflect the standards and are highly engaging. Specified teaching strategies lead all students to understanding and promote high levels of performance.

4. Assessment/Data: Given the need to measure content knowledge, process skills and understandings, the specified assessments provide the means to determine the level of student learning as delineated in the curriculum documents. Both formative and summative assessments are specified, aligned and represent high expectations. The assessments represent a variety of types to address knowledge, skills and understandings.

Key assessments must be aligned with standards as well as be common across the school system. Assessment criteria are used to link/align assessments to standards. For common assessments, levels of performance are defined (e.g., proficiency, mastery) by stated criteria and exemplars are available to teachers. A range of assessments is represented (formative, interim, summative). Finally, assessment data are collected, analyzed and used to assess student learning and inform instruction and curriculum revisions.

5. Curriculum Alignment: There is a clear match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local and state assessments) that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices, creating coherence within and across the grades.

Curriculum alignment refers to the examination of the match among the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local assessment and state assessments). An aligned curriculum represents a curriculum that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices. The curriculum is aligned between local learning expectations and state assessments, between local assessments and learning outcomes. Assessment is aligned with the written and taught curriculum. The following rubric is the tool provided to the vertical teams to guide their discussion and analyses.

11 02/25/14

Central office staff report to the Board of Education regarding the progress in curriculum design, review and renewal. The attached charts are completed by the curriculum vertical teams and then shared with the CPDC. The results of the vertical teams’ analysis form the foundation of the District Development and Performance Plan for the central office as well as inform school and departmental development plans.

12 02/25/14

The Rubric for Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum Indicators of Development

Level One: High Priority

Level Two: Mid-level Priority

Level Three: Low-level Priority

Content, Skills and Understandings: What students are expected to know, understand and be able to do is clearly defined and is meaningful, focused on fundamental and relevant knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a global community and reflect high expectations for all students.

Little evidence of district/school/ department mission reflected in the identified content and skills

State and/or national standards were not used to determine what students should know, understand and be able to do Terminology does not reflect common practice within the discipline and/or current educational research Little or no consideration given to the inclusion of 21st century skills

Some evidence of the district/school/department mission reflected in the identified content and skills Some evidence that state and/or national standards were used to determine what students should know, understand and be able to do Some evidence that terminology reflects common practice within the discipline and/or current educational research Some consideration given to the inclusion of 21st century skills

District/school/department mission effectively reflected in the selection of content and skills and understandings throughout the document Clear evidence that discipline- specific standards, state and/or national standards were used and/or prioritized to determine what students should know, understand and be able to do Common language accurately articulates accepted practice within the discipline and/or current educational research and promotes the work of the discipline Effective 21st century skills are integrated (embedded) throughout the curriculum in order to promote college and career readiness and provide opportunities to extend learning

Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development: The written documents per grade include key required components, including the scope or breadth of material (how much of what is to be taught should be taught at that particular level within that particular context) and the sequence (the succession of when the information is presented) and how (i.e., spiral, systematic, selective emphasis), providing an articulated curriculum across the grades.

Maps or units guide development is inconsistent Maps are not useful or non-existent Specific key learnings, assessments and assured instructional experiences for students are not evident in the maps, units or pacing guides Units are not developed or standards based The curriculum is not

Some maps, units or pacing guides are written and standards based Maps are somewhat useful and used Specific key learnings, assessments and assured instructional experiences for students are somewhat evident in the maps, units or pacing guides Some units are developed and standards based The curriculum is somewhat

Comprehensive curriculum maps, units and pacing guides that define common expectations by grade level and course have been developed across the discipline Maps, units and pacing guides are used to drive instruction and curriculum evaluation Specific key learnings, assessments and assured instructional experiences for students are evident in the maps, units and pacing guides Units are developed and standards based The curriculum is balanced (i.e.,

13 02/25/14





balanced Learning is not sequenced and approximate times are not specified Few or no key resources are specified

balanced Learning is somewhat sequenced and some approximate times are specified Some resources may be specified or limited in scope

appropriate amounts per grade, appropriate across the grades and increasingly rigorous—content is not over or under-emphasized) Learning is sequenced and approximate times are specified to pace instruction appropriately Resources are specified, relevant and current, including internet resources; year of key texts are specified

Assured Learning Experiences: Key cognitive learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) that help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning or tasks that create authentic experience for all students to demonstrate proficiency of the grade level content and understandings are specified. These tasks promote coherence and alignment across the grades/courses and reflect high expectations for all students.

Assured experiences are not specified in the curriculum or are not standards driven Assured experiences do not reflect effective teaching strategies and standards for teaching Assured experiences are not aligned with the curriculum, assessments or standards and lack engagement

Some assured experiences are specified in the curriculum driven by standards Assured experiences may reflect some effective teaching strategies and standards for teaching Some assured experiences are aligned with the curriculum, assessments or standards, reflect some standards, and are somewhat engaging

Assured experiences are specified in the curriculum, including learning experiences that differentiate, bringing meaning to the content, standards and skills Assured experiences employ many effective teaching strategies and standards for teaching Assured experiences are aligned with curriculum and assessments, reflect the standards, and are highly engaging, helping learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new knowledge

14 02/25/14





Assessment/Data: Given the need to measure content knowledge, process skills and understandings, the specified assessments provide the means to determine the level of student learning as delineated in the curriculum documents. Both formative and summative assessments are specified, aligned and represent high expectations.

Assessments are not clearly linked to standards or common across classrooms Assessment criteria (rubrics) are not developed No levels of performance are described

Many assessments are standards based and common across classrooms Some assessment criteria (rubrics) are linked to standards and/or may or may not be consistently used Some levels of performance are defined

Key assessments are aligned with standards and are common across the school system Assessment criteria (rubrics) are used to link/align assessments to standards and are consistently used Levels of performance are clearly defined (e.g., proficiency, mastery) by stated criteria and exemplars are available to teachers A range of assessments is represented (formative, interim, summative)

Key formative, interim and/or summative assessments are not identified Assessments are generally all one type and lack variety Assessments focus solely or overly on low level skills without any significant depth of knowledge Data is not collected and/or structures do not support the purposeful use of assessment results

Formative, interim and summative assessments are represented Assessments are somewhat varied and may incorporate authentic tasks/performance task although infrequently Assessments demonstrate some variety in terms of depth of knowledge but may be unbalanced, inconsistent, or lack scaffolding Some assessment data is collected and analyzed. There is a basic structural framework in place to support the use of data in instructional decision making.

A range of assessments (formative, interim and summative) comprises a tangible part of the teaching and learning process Assessments reflect a variety of formats that regularly includes authentic opportunities to demonstrate understanding of both skills and concepts and performance tasks, in addition to more traditional methods Assessments measure understanding to a variety of depths of knowledge calling for demonstration of critical thinking, problem solving, assessing and managing information, designing or creating and communicating Assessment data (formative, interim and summative) is collected, analyzed, and used to assess student learning and inform instruction and curriculum revision. Structures are well established to support this work

15 02/25/14





Curriculum Alignment: There is a clear match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local and state assessments) that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices, creating coherence within and across the grades.

The written, taught and tested curriculum is not aligned The local curriculum is not aligned with discipline-specific, state and/or national standards Local assessments are not aligned with internal or any external assessments

The written, taught and tested curriculum is somewhat aligned The local curriculum is somewhat aligned with discipline-specific, state and/or national standards Local assessments are somewhat aligned with internal or any external assessments

The written, taught and tested curriculum is aligned The local curriculum is aligned with discipline-specific, state and/or national standards Local assessments are clearly aligned with both internal expectations and any external assessments

IIIIII.. CCuurrrriiccuulluumm LLeeaaddeerrsshhiipp aanndd RReevviieeww SSttrruuccttuurree

To support our model of continuous improvement, two levels of curriculum leadership are required: 1) district-wide input or the Curriculum and Professional Development Council (CPDC) and 2) P-12 departmental or “vertical” review. CCuurrrriiccuulluumm aanndd PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt CCoouunncciill ((CCPPDDCC))

At the district level, it is imperative to examine curriculum and its implementation across a range of teacher and administrator experiences and levels. One component necessary for successful curriculum development is the establishment of an organizational structure that provides for coordination between content areas and grade levels and, additionally, ensures the involvement of those affected by the curriculum. The Curriculum and Professional Development Council (CPDC) is a key “think tank” of the office of the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment. This committee provides district-wide coordination of curriculum and implementation. The Council includes school administrators, central office staff, faculty, department supervisors and curriculum specialists. This Council works with the Assistant Superintendent to ensure that there are opportunities for integration of curriculum across subject areas, and that the district has a long range and systemic plan for curriculum renewal. The Council also monitors the development and implementation of the P-12 subject areas’ standards across grades and subjects and provides feedback to the Assistant Superintendent regarding the structures that support curriculum implementation. This organization also advises as to the professional development needs of the faculty based on curricular and instructional priorities. It is a representative body with specific responsibility to formulate, recommend, review and make decisions about curriculum, instruction and professional development within the guidelines of Board of Education policy. In its cross-disciplinary nature, the team provides vital information to guide the development of the District Development and Performance Plan for Continuous Improvement. They serve as a critical voice for informing that plan and shaping both curriculum and professional development planning.

16 02/25/14

The Curriculum and Professional Development Council (CPDC) consists of certified school personnel and meets during the school year (September -May). The Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment chairs the CPDC. Responsibilities of the CPDC are to:

• Provide input on the District Development and Performance Plan for Continuous Improvement, including strategic actions, efforts and performance indicators

• Examine curriculum review data and provide feedback to directors, principals, department supervisors, curriculum specialists and teachers for curriculum areas under review

• Serve as a “think tank” for new and emerging ideas from the Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment; provide input/information for recommendations when necessary to the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum. Instruction and Assessment

• Assist in the effort to improve effective communication across the schools related to curriculum and professional development; assist in the collection of relevant data as appropriate

• Formulate recommendations regarding the Curriculum and Staff Improvement (CSI) calendar • Contribute to the identification of results and outcomes related to the District Development and

Performance Plan • Monitor the suitability and applications of the West Hartford Professional Development Plan • Share information with respective faculty and staff regarding the work of the CPDC; serve as an

information conduit regarding the committee’s efforts Membership guidelines for the CPDC include the following:

• Every school must be represented • Elementary and secondary school principals • Elementary and secondary school teachers (all inclusive, i.e. ESOL, LMET, PE/Health, arts) • Special education teachers and school counselors • Department supervisors and curriculum specialists • Teacher of the year (annual appointment) • Director of Elementary Education and Director of Secondary Education

Term of membership – 3 years, initial membership will be staggered so there is continuity.

Responsibilities of members:

• Report to faculty and solicit input as appropriate • Participate fully in curriculum discussions, reviews, planning sessions • Review and provide input on the District Development and Performance Plan • Attend up to 4 full-day meetings/year • Contribute to the setting of priorities for professional development for the district • Contribute to the development of the CSI calendar • Review, research and discuss best practices in curriculum, instruction and assessment.

The Assistant Superintendent establishes the agenda for each of the CPDC meetings. A summary of the work of the team is distributed to faculty and administration following each meeting.

17 02/25/14

Curriculum Vertical Teams To ensure an aligned and coherent curriculum, examining the pathways that students experience both within and across the grades, is paramount. To this end, The West Hartford Public Schools has a formal process to guarantee that the curriculum of the schools undergoes a systematic and thorough review across the grades. The structure to support this discipline-based review is “vertical teams.” Curriculum Vertical Teams are P-12 teams designed to accomplish town-wide curriculum coordination and articulation. They are structured to ensure that all schools and levels and key leadership roles are represented and that teachers and administrators alike have a role in making curriculum decisions for their various disciplines. For example, the teams include principals, town-wide reading and mathematics specialists, department supervisors, curriculum specialists as well as teacher representatives from across a range of schools. The vertical team in each discipline also serves to ensure that changes and modifications are made in a timely way and in response to immediate internal or external changes. For example, the team may need to respond to new information in the field, consider new research, respond to state/federal mandates, examine the impact of changes in Board of Education policies/goals, or respond to new standards in the field. The teams engage in the following work:

• Analysis of curriculum: a primary function of the team is to analyze any curriculum as it is developed and ready to be implemented, to ensure that it meets the district criteria for Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum Design and to ensure that these units are aligned and balanced across grades and courses. It is essential that written curriculum be shared across the grades.

• Analysis of data in curriculum implementation: one of the team’s primary functions is to analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of the curriculum in order to recommend changes, modifications or additions to the curriculum. Vertical discussions should begin with an examination of the data regarding the outcomes of the implementation of the curriculum. This may include standardized test scores, local grades, achievement on common assessments, perceptual data or other indicators as defined by the team. Student achievement relative to the implemented curriculum serves as a key source for guiding the work of curriculum revision. Data are used to evaluate the curriculum according to the Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum. At the start of the school year, teams articulate a preliminary assessment of the “state of the state” for their disciplines.

• Analysis of issues in curriculum implementation: another key function is to analyze the effectiveness of the implementation of the curriculum relative to the established Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant curriculum in the broadest sense. The teams identify key issues and needs across the grade levels, based on these established Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant curriculum. The teams prioritize issues (any areas rated as a moderate or significant priority should be immediately addressed) and then work to determine whether action needs to be taken or projects initiated. The teams may recommend that ad hoc work groups be established to accomplish particular tasks. These actions become part of the departmental development plan. Teams regularly analyze the content, work on better aligning standards, curriculum and assessment, and assess the implementation. The teams also engage in problem solving to address critical needs and issues in their disciplines across grade levels and schools.

• Ad hoc work groups are established to address the issues, challenges or needs that were identified by

the vertical team that require prompt attention. This enables the appropriate and key individuals to be

18 02/25/14

involved. Ad hoc work groups may have short agendas, such as developing a particular grade level assessment, or may require longer term action, such as an in depth analysis of a particular portion of a program. The purpose is to have a clear focus for the work group to accomplish a specific identified task within a defined period of time. Ad hoc work groups also allow for broader teacher participation depending upon the nature of the issue at hand and target individuals who are closest to the work.

• Curriculum Vertical Teams also identify and develop long-range plans for curriculum

implementation. Teams evaluate the standards, examine curriculum alignment issues, balance the standards across grades and levels, suggest revisions to curriculum documents, identify the need for writing new curriculum, and suggest needed professional development. It is a cyclical process and as such, curriculum implementation must be constantly monitored and evaluated to ensure appropriate alignment and balance of the curriculum standards. These identified long-range needs form the foundation of departmental strategic actions and efforts to better strengthen the standards and/or provide support and professional development to teachers in the implementation of the curriculum.

Each year, in the fall, the vertical team documents the ratings regarding the Indicators of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum and shares that assessment with the Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment. They update their analysis based on new curriculum written over the summer. This analysis is then used to guide the vertical team work and shape the future departmental strategic actions and efforts. Every five years, the vertical team reports to the CPDC the outcomes of the previous four years, sharing what was, what is and what will be. Additionally, they report on to what extent the curriculum is rigorous and relevant, supports high expectations for all learners, and supports dynamic teaching. (See long-range curriculum/program planning calendar, Appendix B.)

Responsibilities of the Vertical Teams:

• Examine and review new curriculum and share that curriculum across the levels, to ensure that it meets rigorous and relevant criteria and that it is aligned and balanced across the grades.

• Examine and review curriculum data relative to the established criteria; rate and assess the level of development by grade and course. Submit completed form annually to Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

• Establish short term goals for immediate action • Recommend the establishment of ad hoc work groups to address specific issues/needs • Establish long term goals for curriculum improvement, including recommendations for curriculum

writing/revisions • Monitor outcomes related to the recommended improvement efforts and report to the Assistant

Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment progress toward the established criteria • Contribute to the development of departmental strategic actions related to curriculum improvement • Assist in the effort to improve effective communication across the schools related to curriculum and

professional development; assist in the collection of relevant data as appropriate • Formulate recommendations regarding the Curriculum and Staff Improvement (CSI) related to the

curriculum implementation • Contribute to the identification of results and outcomes related to the criteria • Share or solicit information with respective faculty and staff regarding the work of the vertical team;

serve as an information conduit regarding the committee’s efforts

19 02/25/14

Membership guidelines for the Vertical Teams include the following standing members: • Department supervisors representing the discipline • Curriculum specialists assigned to the curricular area • Related town-wide curriculum specialists • Director of secondary education and director of elementary education– permanent membership and

facilitation responsibilities • Elementary principals assigned to the curriculum area under review • Representative secondary school principals, assistant principals • Elementary (4 - representing range of grades), middle school (3 or 1 from each school) and high

school teachers (2 from each school and across grades) responsible for teaching the discipline Term of membership – initial membership will be staggered so there is continuity. Responsibilities of members:

• Report to faculty and solicit input as appropriate • Participate fully in the expectations of a vertical team as described above • Contribute grade level work, samples, as necessary to contribute to any aspect of the review • Attend 3-5 half-day meetings/year • Contribute to the setting of priorities for professional development related to the identified needs • Review research and discuss best practices in curriculum, instruction and assessment

The department supervisor and/or identified principal curriculum leaders will establish the agenda for each of the vertical team meetings with input from the Assistant Superintendent. A copy of the minutes of each meeting is sent to the office of the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment.

20 02/25/14

Vertical Team Documentation of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum Implementation

Department: ____________________________________________

Current School Year:___________________Evaluation Cycle Year: 1 2 3 4

Indicate Level (see rubric for complete explanation) and Commentary (if needed) Level 1: high level priority Level 2: mid-level priority Level 3: low-level priority GRADES/ COURSES

Content, Skills and Understandings

Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development

Assured Learning Experiences

Assessment/Data Curriculum Alignment

PreK

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9: list courses




21 02/25/14

IIVV.. DDaattaa CCoolllleeccttiioonn//RReeppoorrttiinngg FFoorrmmss ffoorr CCPPDDCC RReevviieeww

In addition to the yearly Vertical Team Documentation of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum Implementation summary forms which rate the “state of the state” of the discipline according to our standards for Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum on a scale of one to three, the following questions are provided to guide the data collection reporting process. These charts provide specific details that contribute to a thorough curriculum analysis. It is imperative that the forms be completed as outlined. Members of the CPDC will review the forms in detail during the review process. The intent of the curriculum forms is to provide current and accurate information to the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment as well as members of the CPDC by providing a picture of program offerings across the levels, P-12. Please note: all forms used in this process are posted on the Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Website http://www.whps.org/. It is expected that forms will be completed electronically and submitted to the office of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment two weeks prior to the CPDC review date.

22 02/25/14

Curriculum Vertical Team 5th Year Presentation Content Area: _____________________ Grade Range: ___________ Date of Presentation to CPDC: _____________ Vertical Team Members Name Grade(s) School Role Before completing the indicator forms, please review the mission framework expectations, which are provided as a reflection tool to assess overall program effectiveness. I. To what extent have we provided rigorous and relevant curriculum?

Is the curriculum comprehensive, including academics, arts, and personal wellness? Is the curriculum inquiry-based? Does the curriculum provide for 21st century skills including: Problem solving? Communication? Critical thinking and adaptability?

II. To what extent does the curriculum support high expectations for all learners?

Does the curriculum cultivate student interests, strengths and abilities? Does the curriculum apply varied styles and approaches? Is there evidence of an understanding of preferred strategies? Does the curriculum meet individual needs?

III. To what extent does the curriculum support dynamic teaching?

Does the teaching promote a student-centered approach? Is the teaching skillful? Is the teaching engaging? Is the teaching data-driven? Is the teaching reflective and collaborative? Is the teaching personalized?

23 02/25/14

Data and Artifacts Collected, Analyzed or Examined

In column one, specify the data collected or analyzed and the artifacts examined as part of the

curriculum review.

In columns two through six, check off which data and artifacts were used to answer the guiding

questions for each indicator. Select sample artifacts to be used during your presentation. Star those

that are represented in your presentation.

Indicator 1 Content, Skills & Understandings

Indicator 2 Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development

Indicator 3 Assured Learning Experiences

Indicator 4 Assessment/ Data

Indicator 5 Curriculum Alignment

DATA

ARTIFACTS

24 02/25/14

Vertical Team Documentation of Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum Implementation

Department: ____________________________________________

Review Date: ___________________

Indicate Level (see rubric for complete explanation) Level 1: high priority Level 2: mid level priority Level 3: low-level priority GRADES/ COURSES

Content, Skills and Understandings

Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development

Assured Learning Experiences

Assessment/Data Curriculum Alignment

PreK

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8





25 02/25/14

Indicator 1: Content, Skills and Understandings: What students are expected to know, understand and be able to do is clearly defined and is meaningful, focused on fundamental and relevant knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a global community, and reflects high expectations for all students.

The district/school/department mission is effectively reflected in the selection of content and skills. There is clear and compelling evidence that state and/or national standards were used and/or prioritized to determine what students should know, understand and be able to do. A common language is articulated accurately and it reflects accepted practice within the discipline and/or current educational research and promotes the work of the discipline. Effective 21st century skills are integrated (embedded) throughout the curriculum in order to promote college and career readiness (flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility), including problem solving, communication (communicating clearly, collaborating with others), critical thinking (reasoning effectively, using systems, thinking, making judgments and decisions), and adaptability. The specified content, skills and understandings provide opportunities to have student learning extend beyond the curriculum. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

26 02/25/14

Indicator 2: Maps, Units and Pacing Guides Development: The written documents per grade include key required components, including the scope or breadth of material (how much of what is to be taught/ should be taught at that particular level within that particular context) and the sequence (the succession of when the information is presented) and how (i.e., spiral, systematic, selective emphasis), providing an articulated curriculum across the grades.

Comprehensive curriculum maps, units and pacing guides that define common expectations by grade level and course have been developed across the discipline. Maps are used by teachers to guide and sequence instruction where key content knowledge and skills, assessments and assured instructional experiences are evident. The units of study, with priority standards and supporting standards that are aligned with and are “unwrapped,” are clearly identified. The units of study also detail the big ideas, essential questions, pre- and post-assessments, key vocabulary, interdisciplinary connections, 21st century learning skills, learning activities, and high-impact instructional strategies that address differentiation, enrichment and intervention (Ainsworth, 2010). The curriculum is balanced (i.e., appropriate amounts per grade, appropriate across the grades and increasingly rigorous—content is not over or under emphasized). A pacing guide is used by teachers for implementing the units of study to ensure all priority standards are taught, assessed, re-taught, and reassessed over the course of the school year (Ainsworth). The district “Rigorous and Relevant Unit Design Expectations” have been used to review the existing units and those expectations are reflected in the unit design itself. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

27 02/25/14

Indicator 3: Assured Learning Experiences: Key cognitive learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) that help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning or tasks that create authentic experiences for all students to demonstrate proficiency of the grade level content and understandings are specified. These tasks promote coherence and alignment across the grades/courses and reflect high expectations for all students.

The assured learning experiences are specified in the curriculum, including learning experiences that differentiate, bringing meaning to the content, standards and skills. Assured learning experiences employ best practices and reflect effective teaching strategies and standards for dynamic teaching that is student-centered, skillful, data-driven, engaging, reflective and collaborative, and personalized. Assured learning experiences are aligned with curriculum and assessments, reflect the standards and are highly engaging. Specified teaching strategies lead all students to understanding and promote high levels of performance. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

28 02/25/14

Indicator 4: Assessment/Data: Given the need to measure content knowledge, process skills and understandings, the specified assessments provide the means to determine the level of student learning as delineated in the curriculum documents. Both formative and summative assessments are specified, aligned and represent high expectations.

Key assessments must be aligned with standards as well as be common across the school system. Assessment criteria are used to link/align assessments to standards. For common assessments, levels of performance are defined (e.g., proficiency, mastery) by stated criteria and exemplars are available to teachers. A range of assessments are represented (formative, interim, and summative). Assessments should be varied in order to measure depth of knowledge, level of understanding and the ability to apply concepts in unique or practical settings. Finally, assessment data are collected, analyzed and used to assess student learning and inform Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment revisions. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

29 02/25/14

Indicator 5: Curriculum Alignment: There is a clear match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local and state assessments) that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices, creating coherence within and across the grades.

Curriculum alignment refers to the examination of the match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local assessment and state assessments). An aligned curriculum represents a curriculum that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices. The curriculum is aligned between local learning expectations and state assessments, between local assessments and learning outcomes. Assessment is aligned with the written and taught curriculum. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

30 02/25/14

SSuummmmaarryy

FFiinnaall CCoonncclluussiioonnss:: TToopp PPrriioorriittiieess:: RReessoouurrccee NNeeeeddss::

31 02/25/14

VV.. RReellaatteedd SSeerrvviicceess RReevviieeww PPrroocceessss RReellaatteedd sseerrvviicceess,, tthhaatt iiss,, hheeaalltthh sseerrvviicceess ((nnuurrssiinngg)),, ooccccuuppaattiioonnaall //pphhyyssiiccaall tthheerraappyy,, ppssyycchhoollooggyy//ssoocciiaall wwoorrkk sseerrvviicceess,, aanndd ssppeeeecchh aanndd llaanngguuaaggee hheeaarriinngg iimmppaaiirreedd sseerrvviicceess,, hhaadd pprreevviioouussllyy uusseedd tthhee ccuurrrriiccuulluumm rreevviieeww ccrriitteerriiaa aass aa mmeeaannss ffoorr aasssseessssiinngg tthheeiirr sseerrvviiccee ddeelliivveerryy.. TThhaatt sseett ooff ccrriitteerriiaa ddiidd nnoott mmaattcchh tthheeiirr sseerrvviiccee ddeelliivveerryy eexxppeeccttaattiioonnss aass sseerrvviicceess ddoo nnoott hhaavvee aa ““ccuurrrriiccuulluumm”” ppeerr ssee.. TThheerreeffoorree,, aa ccoommmmiitttteeee ooff rreellaatteedd sseerrvviicceess ppeerrssoonnnneell wwaass ccoonnvveenneedd iinn 22001111 wwiitthh tthhee cchhaarrggee ttoo ccrreeaattee tthheeiirr oowwnn sseett ooff rreevviieeww ccrriitteerriiaa tthhaatt bbeetttteerr mmaattcchheedd aanndd aalliiggnneedd wwiitthh tthheeiirr sseerrvviiccee ddeelliivveerryy aanndd tthhaatt ccoouulldd iinnffoorrmm eeaacchh ddeeppaarrttmmeenntt’’ss eeffffoorrttss aatt ccoonnttiinnuuoouuss iimmpprroovveemmeenntt.. TThhee ggooaall ooff rreellaatteedd sseerrvviicceess rreevviieeww iiss ttoo uussee tthhee rreevviieeww ttoo iinnffoorrmm aanndd sshhaappee ddeelliivveerryy ooff sseerrvviicceess,, uussiinngg oouurr ccoonnttiinnuuoouuss iimmpprroovveemmeenntt mmooddeell.. TThhee tteeaamm ggeenneerraatteedd IInnddiiccaattoorrss ooff RRiiggoorroouuss aanndd RReelleevvaanntt RReellaatteedd SSeerrvviicceess.. TThheessee include:

1. Standards and Guidelines: Related services programs are conducted according to current evidence-based practices, state and national guidelines, school district policies/procedures and federal and state mandates/regulations.

2. Delivery of Services: Related services deliver a continuum of supports and effective interventions

that address personal, physical, social/emotional and academic needs in order to prepare students for college and careers.

3. Consultation, Collaboration and Communication: Consultation, collaboration and

communication between school personnel, family, students and community provides for continuity and cohesiveness of instruction, supports and services to ensure student growth and success.

4. Assessment: Assessments that are comprehensive, non-biased and culturally responsive are used to

create a profile of the student’s strengths and needs. These measures inform instruction and intervention that result in educational benefit for the learner.

What follows is a more elaborated definition of each.

1. Standards and Guidelines: Related services programs are conducted according to current evidence-based practices, state and national guidelines, school district policies/procedures/goals and federal and state mandates/regulations. Related services programs utilize clear, written policies, guidelines and procedures based on national and state regulations. Services provided are based on evidence developed to meet the identified needs of students, families and school personnel.

2. Delivery of Services: Related services deliver a continuum of supports and effective interventions

that address personal, physical, social/emotional and academic needs in order to prepare students for college and careers. Service delivery is provided with consistency and fidelity district wide, and is research-/evidence-based and is consistent with federal, national and state regulations and guidelines.

3. Consultation, Collaboration and Communication: Consultation, collaboration and

communication between school personnel, family, students and community provides for continuity and cohesiveness of instruction, supports and services to ensure student growth and success. Communication between service providers and families is on-going and culturally sensitive to build strong partnerships and provide effective programs and resources. Collaboration and communication allow for appropriate screening, access to services and positive transitions for students and families.

32 02/25/14

4. Assessment: Assessments that are comprehensive, non-biased and culturally responsive are used to create a profile of the student’s strengths and needs. Informal and standardized measures are conducted according to current professional standards of practice, school district policies and procedures, legal mandates and where applicable, in accordance with state special education eligibility guidelines. These measures inform instruction and intervention that result in educational benefit for the learner.

Programmatic Leadership has defined three levels of development:

Level One -- High Priority: This level indicates that this area of the related service needs significant work in order to become rigorous and relevant. It is considered a priority in order to meet our related service expectations. It may be that the area has new and emerging standards, changes in the field, or there were a range of constraints that were not appropriate to accomplish the work at the time of the last review. However, it indicates an area in need of significant work.

Level Two -- Mid-level Priority: The level indicates development that is emerging. It is on the path to meeting the related service expectations; however, the work is still emerging or evolving. Drafts may be in place, or work is in progress; however, it does not yet fully meet our criteria and expectations. Level Three – Low-level Priority: This level indicates that the development is highly evident and that the work related to the criteria is “complete and comprehensive;” however, part of being complete is recognizing the importance of continuous review and “tweaking” of the work. For this level, the majority of the work is in place.

The following rubric is the tool provided to the vertical teams to guide their discussion and analyses. The attached charts are completed by the related service team and then shared with the CPDC. The results of the vertical teams’ analysis inform the District Development and Performance Plan for the central office as well as school and departmental development plans.

33 02/25/14

The Rubric for Rigorous and Relevant Related Services Indicators of Development




Standards and Guidelines: Related services programs are conducted according to current evidence-based practices, state and national guidelines, school district policies/procedures/goals and federal and state mandates/regulations.

• Little evidence of the district and department mission reflected in the standards and guidelines of the service.

• Some evidence of the district and department mission reflected in the standards and guidelines of the service.

• District and department mission is effectively reflected in the standards and guidelines of the service.

• Service-specific state and or national standards are not evidenced in determining the scope of practice.

• Some evidence that service-specific state and or national standards were prioritized and used to determine the scope of practice.

• Clear evidence that service-specific state and/or national standards were prioritized and used to determine the scope of practice.

• Evidence-based practices are not used to develop a service that meets the identified needs of students, families and school personnel.

• Evidence-based practices are inconsistently used to develop a service that meets the identified needs of students, families and school personnel.

• Evidence-based practices are consistently used to develop a service that meets the identified needs of students, families and school personnel.

• Written policies, guidelines and procedures for the service do not exist and/or do not reflect best practice.

• Some written policies, guidelines and procedures for the service exist to promote best practice.

• Clear, written policies, guidelines and procedures that reflect best practice exist to ensure quality of services and uniformity district wide.

• National and state regulations and eligibility guidelines do not exist for the service or are not reflected in the written policies, guidelines and procedures.

• National and state regulations and eligibility guidelines are somewhat reflected in written policies, guidelines and procedures.

• National and state regulations and eligibility guidelines are reflected in written policies, guidelines and procedures.

• Professional development for service providers is not aligned with district priorities, nor is it consistent with discipline-specific clinical skills.

• Professional development for service providers does not always meet the needs to update discipline-specific skills. Professional development is not always relevant for service providers.

• A range of relevant and timely professional development activities is supported in a planned manner consistent with district priorities. The staff development plan for the service providers includes opportunities to update both discipline-specific clinical skills as well other educational knowledge/skills.

34 02/25/14





Delivery of Services: Related services deliver a continuum of supports and effective interventions that address personal, physical, social/emotional and academic needs in order to prepare students for college and careers.

• Delivery of service is not consistent with federal, national and state regulations and guidelines.

• Delivery of service is somewhat consistent with federal, national and state regulations and guidelines.

• Delivery of service is consistent with federal, national and state regulations and guidelines.

• Service delivery and the fidelity of the services provided are inconsistent across the district.

• Service delivery and the fidelity of the services provided are somewhat consistent across the district.

• Service delivery is provided with consistency and fidelity district wide.

• Materials, supports and resources are not current across buildings, and matched with service’s identified needs.

• Materials, supports and resources may not be current, consistent across buildings, and/or matched with service's identified needs.

• Materials, supports and resources are current, consistent across buildings, and matched with service’s identified needs.

• Staff allocation do not reflect best practice in the areas of case load, work load and safety; and adequately meets the needs of all students district wide.

• Staff allocation may not reflect best practice in the areas of caseload, workload and/or safety and may not adequately meet the needs of all students district wide.

• Staff allocation reflects best practice in the areas of case load, work load and safety; and adequately meets the needs of all students district wide.

• There is little evidence that the service aligns with or supports the general education curriculum.

• There is limited alignment and support of the general education curriculum.

• The service aligns with and supports general education curriculum where appropriate and a natural “fit.”

• Technology is not utilized to assist students in fully accessing and engaging in their educational program.

• There is limited use of technology utilized to assist students in fully accessing and engaging in their educational program.

• Technology is utilized to assist students in fully accessing and engaging in their educational program.

• Emphasis on prevention and early intervention for all students is not evident in programs and practice.

• Emphasis on prevention and early intervention for all students is somewhat evident in programs and practice.

• Emphasis on prevention and early intervention for all students is evident in programs and practice.

35 02/25/14





Delivery of Services: Related services deliver a continuum of supports and effective interventions that address personal, physical, social/emotional and academic needs in order to prepare students for college and careers.

• Screenings and assessments are not aligned with student's specific areas of identified needs and the results are not used to inform intervention.

• Screenings and assessments are somewhat aligned with student's specific areas of identified needs and the results are somewhat used to inform intervention.

• Screenings and assessments are directly aligned with student’s specific area(s) of identified needs and the results are used to inform intervention(s).

• Interventions employed are not research-/evidence- based and/or do not target the student’s identified needs.

• Some interventions employed are research-/evidence-based and directly target the student’s identified needs.

Interventions employed are research/evidence based and directly target the student’s identified needs.

• There is little evidence of progress monitoring to ensure that growth is occurring.

• Progress is inconsistently monitored to ensure that growth is occurring.

• Progress is consistently monitored to ensure that growth is occurring.

• There is limited support for parents and families to become involved in the growth and development of their child, and to participate in programs provided.

• Some parents and families are encouraged, supported and involved in the growth and development of their child and inconsistently participate in the programs provided.

• All parents and families are actively encouraged, supported and involved in the growth and development of their child, and participate in programs provided.

• There is minimal evidence of a well-planned, well-articulated and effective transition between grade levels, service providers and outside agencies, including PK through post-secondary.

• Student transitions are inconsistent between grade levels, service providers and outside agencies, including PK through post-secondary.

• Student transitions between grade levels, service providers and outside agencies, PK-post-secondary, are planned, well-articulated and seamless.

• Written documentation is not concise, accurate or relevant, and is not completed within the designated timeframe.

• Written documentation is inconsistently accurate, relevant, and not always completed within the designated timeframe.

• All written documentation is concise, accurate, relevant and completed within the designated timeframe.

• Professional development provided does not meet the needs of school personnel to address the comprehensive scope of services available to students, teachers and families.

• Professional development inconsistently addresses the comprehensive scope of services available to students, teachers and families, and is not always provided.

• Professional development is provided to school personnel formally and informally to highlight the comprehensive scope of the services available to students, teachers and families.

36 02/25/14





Consultation, Collaboration and Communication: Consultation, collaboration and communication between school personnel, family, students and community provides for continuity and cohesiveness of instruction, supports and services to ensure student growth and success, and compliance with federal and state mandates/ regulations.

• There is insufficient evidence of common planning time to effectively support collaborative and inclusive practice.

• There is some evidence of common planning time that allows service providers and somewhat active members to embrace inclusive practices and collaborate to support all students.

• Common planning time is dedicated and supported by the school community in order to embrace inclusive practices and collaborate to support all students.

• Service providers are unable to develop on-going consultant and collaborative partnerships to discuss, develop and implement differentiated strategies and interventions for full group, small group and individuals.

• Service providers inconsistently develop on-going consultant and collaborative partnerships to discuss, develop and implement differentiated strategies and interventions for full group, small group and individuals.

• Service providers develop ongoing consultant and collaborative partnerships to discuss, develop and implement differentiated strategies and interventions for full group, small group and individuals.

• Service providers are unable to collaborate with student’s general education teachers and other providers to ensure their instruction aligns with and supports the grade level curriculum and expectations.

• Service providers inconsistently collaborate with student’s general education teachers and other providers to ensure their instruction aligns with and supports the grade level curriculum and expectations.

• Service providers collaborate with student’s general education teachers and other providers to ensure their instruction aligns with and supports the grade level curriculum and expectations.

• Service providers are unable to collaborate and communicate with others to ensure their students have the necessary support(s) to access curricular and non-curricular activities.

• Service providers inconsistently collaborate and communicate with others to ensure their students have the necessary support(s) to access curricular and non-curricular activities.

• Service providers collaborate and communicate with others to ensure their students have the necessary support(s) to access curricular and non-curricular activities.

• Service providers are unable to collaborate with others to develop, promote and implement prevention interventions, programs and services.

• Service providers inconsistently collaborate with others to develop, promote and implement prevention interventions, programs and services.

• Service providers collaborate with others to develop, promote and implement prevention interventions, programs and services.

• There is limited evidence that interventions are collaboratively developed, reviewed and monitored after implementation.

• There is some evidence that interventions are collaboratively developed, reviewed and monitored after implementation.

• Interventions are consistently collaboratively developed, reviewed and monitored after implementation.

37 02/25/14





Consultation, Collaboration and Communication: Consultation, collaboration and communication between school personnel, family, students and community provides for continuity and cohesiveness of instruction, supports and services to ensure student growth and success. and federal and state mandates/regulations.

• Service providers are unable to collaborate, as appropriate, with school personnel, students, families and community providers in planning appropriate and relevant student screenings and assessments.

• Service providers are inconsistently collaborate, as appropriate, with school personnel, students, families and community providers in planning appropriate and relevant student screenings and assessments.

• Service providers collaborate, as appropriate, with school personnel, students, families and community providers in planning appropriate and relevant student screenings and assessments.

• Service providers are unable to meet with grade levels, other service providers and outside agencies to ensure a smooth, appropriate transition for students academically, emotionally, socially and physically.

• Service providers meet inconsistently with grade levels, other service providers and outside agencies to ensure a smooth, appropriate transition for students academically, emotionally, socially and physically.

• Service providers meet with grade levels, other service providers and outside agencies to ensure a smooth, appropriate transition for students academically, emotionally, socially and physically.

• There is minimal evidence of communication between service providers and families; it is neither ongoing nor culturally sensitive, and therefore does not build strong partnerships or provide effective programs and resources.

• Communication between service providers and families is inconsistent and not always culturally sensitive in order to build strong partnerships and provide effective programs and resources.

• Communication between service providers and families is ongoing and culturally sensitive to build strong partnerships and provide effective programs and resources.

38 02/25/14





Assessment: Assessments that are comprehensive, non-biased and culturally responsive are used to create a profile of the student’s strengths and needs. These measures inform instruction and intervention, which results in an educational benefit for the learner.

• There is limited evidence that student assessment activities are conducted according to current professional standards of practice, school district policies and procedures, and legal mandates.

• Student assessment activities are inconsistently conducted according to current professional standards of practice, school district policies and procedures, and legal mandates.

• Student assessment activities are conducted according to current professional standards of practice, school district policies and procedures, and legal mandates.

• State special education eligibility guidelines, when available for the related service, are neither used appropriately nor consistently, to determine eligibility for services district wide.

• State special education eligibility guidelines, when available for the related service, are used inappropriately and inconsistently to determine eligibility for services district wide.

• State special education eligibility guidelines, when available for the related service, are used appropriately and consistently to determine eligibility for services district wide.

• There is limited evidence that goals and objectives of intervention are educationally relevant, developmentally appropriate or are based on assessment and reassessment findings.

• Goals and objectives of intervention are not consistently educationally relevant, developmentally appropriate or based on assessment and reassessment findings.

• Goals and objectives of intervention are educationally relevant, developmentally appropriate and based on assessment and reassessment findings.

• Assessments conducted are limited in scope, and are often missing a balance between informal procedures (interviews, observations, behavioral rating scales, etc.) and standardized procedures that are valid and reliable for the populations and purposes intended.

• Service providers conduct comprehensive non-biased assessments inconsistently, which include both informal (interviews, observations, behavioral rating scales, etc.) and standardized procedures that are valid and reliable for the populations and purposes intended.

• Service providers conduct comprehensive non-biased assessments which include both informal (interviews, observations, behavioral rating scales, etc.) and standardized procedures that are valid and reliable for the populations and purposes intended.

• In conducting assessments and interpreting results, there is little evidence that factors such as cultural and language background, educational experience, family priorities, health status and evidence of response to intervention have been considered.

• In conducting assessments and interpreting results, service providers do not always consider factors such as cultural and language background, educational experience, family priorities, health status and evidence of response to intervention.

• In conducting assessments and interpreting results, service providers consider factors such as cultural and language background, educational experience, family priorities, health status and evidence of response to intervention.

39 02/25/14





Assessment: Assessments that are comprehensive, non-biased and culturally responsive are used to create a profile of the student’s strengths and needs. These measures inform instruction and intervention that result in educational benefits for the learner.

• Eligibility and intervention decisions and recommendations are based solely on quantitative formulas.

• Eligibility and intervention decisions and recommendations are sometimes based solely on quantitative formulas.

• Eligibility and intervention decisions and recommendations are not based solely on quantitative formulas.

• There is limited evidence that service providers use best practice, clinical judgment or assessment protocols to select areas of assessment, or assessment instruments or procedures on the basis of an individual student’s needs and presenting areas of concern.

• Service providers inconsistently use best practice, clinical judgment and assessment protocols to select areas of assessment, and assessment instruments or procedures on the basis of an individual student’s needs and presenting areas of concern.

• Service providers use best practice, clinical judgment and assessment protocols to select areas of assessment, and assessment instruments or procedures on the basis of an individual student’s needs and presenting areas of concern.

• Allocated materials, supports and resources (updated testing materials, adequate number of protocols, interpreting services, etc.) are insufficient to adequately meet the testing needs of the related service district wide.

• Allocated materials, supports and resources (updated testing materials, adequate number of protocols, interpreting services, etc.) are limited and do not consistently meet the testing needs of the related service district wide.

• Allocated materials, supports and resources (updated testing materials, adequate number of protocols, interpreting services, etc.) are sufficient and adequately meet the testing needs of the related service district wide.

40 02/25/14

Team Documentation of Rigorous and Relevant Related Service

Related Service:____________________________________________

Current School Year:___________________Evaluation Cycle Year: 1 2 3 4

Indicate Level (see rubric for complete explanation) and Commentary (if needed)

Level 1: High Level Priority

Level 2: Mid-level Priority

Level 3: Low-level Priority

GRADE LEVEL Standards and

Guidelines Delivery of Services Consultation,

Collaboration and Communication

Assessment

PreK

Elementary

Middle School

High School

Post-Secondary

41 02/25/14

Related Service Team 5th Year Presentation Related Service Area: _____________________ Date of Presentation to CPDC: _____________ Team Members Name Grade(s) School Role

42 02/25/14

Data and Artifacts Collected, Analyzed or Examined

In column one, specify the data collected or analyzed and the artifacts examined as part of the

service review.

In columns two through five, check off which data and artifacts were used to answer the guiding

questions for each indicator.

Indicator 1 Standards & Guidelines

Indicator 2 Delivery of Services

Indicator 3 Consultation, Collaboration & Communication

Indicator 4 Assessment

DATA

ARTIFACTS Data: i.e.,

• Common Formative Assessments • Policy Handbooks • At-Risk Assessments • DCF Referrals • Surveys, Checklists

43 02/25/14

Indicator 1: Standards and Guidelines: Related services programs are conducted according to current evidence-based practices, state and national guidelines, school district policies/procedures and federal and state mandates/regulations.

The district and department mission is effectively reflected in the standards and guidelines of the service. There is clear evidence that service specific state and/or national standards were prioritized and used to determine the scope of practice. Evidence-based practices are used to develop a service that meets the identified needs of students, families and school personnel. There are clear written policies, guidelines and procedures that reflect best practice to ensure quality of services and uniformity district-wide. National and state regulations and eligibility guidelines are reflected in written policies, guidelines and procedures. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

44 02/25/14

Indicator 2: Delivery of Services: Related services deliver a continuum of supports and effective interventions that address personal, physical, social/emotional and academic needs in order to prepare students for college and careers.

The delivery of service is consistent with federal, national and state regulations and guidelines. Service delivery is research-/evidence-based and is provided with consistency and fidelity district-wide. The materials, supports and resources provided are current, consistent across buildings and are matched with the service’s identified needs. Staff allocation reflects the best practice in the areas of case load, work load and safety. The case load adequately meets the needs of all students. The service aligns with and supports general education curriculum where appropriate. Technology is utilized to assist students in fully accessing and engaging in their educational program. There is an emphasis on prevention and early intervention for students, and screening and assessments are directly aligned with students’ specific areas of need. All parents and families are actively encouraged, supported and involved in the growth and development of their child. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

45 02/25/14

Indicator 3: Consultation, Collaboration and Communication: Consultation, collaboration and communication between school personnel, family, students and community provides for continuity and cohesiveness of instruction, supports and services to ensure student growth and success.

Service members are active members of their school community, to develop ongoing consultant and collaborative partnerships. Service providers collaborate with a number of constituents including families, students, general educators, and community service providers. Service providers work to ensure smooth and appropriate transitions for students academically, emotionally, socially and physically. The communication between service providers and families is ongoing and culturally sensitive to build strong partnerships and provide effective programs and resources. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

46 02/25/14

Indicator 4 Assessment: Assessments that are comprehensive, non-biased and culturally responsive are used to create a profile of the student’s strengths and needs. These measures inform instruction and intervention that result in educational benefit for the learner.

Service providers conduct comprehensive, non-biased assessments which include informal and standardized procedures that are valid and reliable for the populations and the purposes intended. When available, the eligibility guidelines for the related service are used to appropriately and consistently determine eligibility for services district wide. In conducting assessments and interpreting results, service providers consider factors such as cultural and language background, educational experience, family priorities, health status and response to intervention. The service providers’ department has allocated materials, supports and resources in order to adequately meet the testing needs of the related service district wide. What questions did you ask to guide your evaluation of this indicator? (Lines of inquiry) What did the data and/or artifacts reveal? What did you conclude? How did the data inform the vertical team priorities? Based on your vertical team priorities and data analysis, what emerged as strengths and needs? What level of priority has been identified for this indicator (high, mid-level, low-level)?

47 02/25/14

SSuummmmaarryy

FFiinnaall CCoonncclluussiioonnss:: TToopp PPrriioorriittiieess:: RReessoouurrccee NNeeeeddss::

48 02/25/14

VI. CPDC Presentation and the Role of CPDC Preparing to Present to the CPDC The purpose of the CPDC presentation is to provide an opportunity for vertical teams to present the analysis that they conducted relative to the indicators. This review process provides a “community of practice” of other educators who can help the process of curriculum inquiry and ultimately, reinforce, enrich or extend the department’s plans for improvement. That is, this shared review process is designed to help to affirm or extend the level of priorities identified by the vertical teams. Ideally, the process should help teams to clarify their priorities and ultimately, to continue to strengthen the curriculum. This external “set of eyes” demands that a discipline be able to articulate how they are analyzing their data, the success of curriculum implementation and how they know whether or not our students are learning at sufficient levels of rigor. Having faculty from other departments and a range of levels allows for a meaningful dialogue and develops a district-wide community of practice. It is in this way that the process achieves its main purpose to support a discipline in determining their main priorities for improvement. The review team, following their collaborative analysis of data, an examination of curriculum documents, assessments and learning experiences, is ready to summarize that work and present their “findings” to the CPDC. For the presentation, the team should select the data they will share from their analysis that represent trends and patterns over time. Next, the team should select the artifacts that are most illustrative of what they studied and learned as they answered the questions that frame the written report. Teams’ time to present is limited, so they need to be very selective about what is shared. In general, a team will have between 60 and 90 minutes to present information regarding their analysis and conclusions related to the indicators. It is recommended that teams organize their presentations around the indicators and reference specifically any artifacts that they provide to the CPDC. Simply putting artifacts on the table is insufficient as the CPDC does not have sufficient time to sift through a range of documents. Stronger presentations reference the artifacts as they move through a discussion of the indicators. The indicators naturally overlap, however it is helpful to the CPDC as they listen to stay focused on a particular indicator. Presenters need to pace themselves and anticipate no more than approximately 10 minutes per indicator. The team’s job is to make the written summaries and documents come alive for the CPDC, to allow the CPDC to provide input to affirm or strengthen or focus the priorities. If teams need support for how to prepare, they are encouraged to meet with the Directors of Elementary or Secondary Education. Understanding the Process of Review and the Role of the CPDC Members The presentation outline is as follows:

1. Presenters share their analysis of each indicator (approximately 10-12 minutes per indicator), addressing the data/artifacts, how they were analyzed. In short, they provide a summary of the written documentation, referencing artifacts as they move through the presentation.

49 02/25/14

2. Following the presentation, the presenting team spreads out and joins the CPDC members in small groups at tables organized in mixed levels. The presenting team’s job is to listen to the discussion and to answer any clarifying questions.

3. The CPDC is provided a set of guiding questions that they answer as a small group following the presentation. Someone assumes the role of recorder (who will chart the discussion), someone else the reporter (who will share the top priorities). Generally, groups are mixed level groups of about 6-8 people. The questions the CPDC uses to guide their discussion are as follows:

____________________________________________________________________________ Indicator 1: Content, Skills and Understandings Identify/summarize the evidence (either from the presentation, artifacts, or written materials) that the vertical team presented regarding the level or degree to which the content, skills, and understandings are clearly defined, meaningful and reflect high expectations. Based on the presentation, materials and artifacts, identify your top “take away’s”, that is, main ideas, themes, patterns, from this indicator. To what degree is the data/evidence sufficient to support the level of priority identified by the team? What other questions, if any, do you have regarding this indicator? Indicator 2: Maps, Units, and Pacing guides Development Identify/summarize the evidence (either from the presentation, artifacts, or written materials) that the vertical team presented regarding an articulated curriculum across the grades. Consider the level or degree to which the written documents include key required components: the scope or breadth of material (how much of what is to be taught should be taught at that particular level within that particular context) and the sequence (the succession of when the information is presented) and how the curriculum is organized (i.e., spiral, systematic, selective emphasis). Based on the presentation, materials and artifacts, identify your top “take away’s”, that is, main ideas, themes, patterns, from this indicator. To what degree is the data/evidence sufficient to support the level of priority identified by the team? What other questions, if any, do you have regarding this indicator? Indicator 3: Assured Learning Experiences: Identify/summarize the evidence (either from the presentation, artifacts, or written materials) that the vertical team presented regarding the level or degree to which the tasks promote coherence and alignment across the goals/courses and reflect high expectations for all students. Consider the key cognitive learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) that help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning or tasks that create authentic

50 02/25/14

experiences for all students to demonstrate proficiency of the grade level content and understandings. Based on the presentation, materials and artifacts, identify your top “take away’s”, that is, main ideas, themes, patterns, from this indicator. To what degree is the data/evidence sufficient to support the level of priority identified by the team? What other questions, if any, do you have regarding this indicator? Indicator 4: Assessment/Data: Identify/summarize the evidence (either from the presentation, artifacts, or written materials) that the vertical team presented regarding the level or degree to which the specified assessments provide the means to determine the level of student learning as delineated in the curriculum documents. Consider whether both formative and summative assessments are specified, aligned and represent high expectations. Based on the presentation, materials and artifacts, identify your top “take away’s”, that is, main ideas, themes, patterns, from this indicator. To what degree is the data/evidence sufficient to support the level of priority identified by the team? What other questions, if any, do you have regarding this indicator? Indicator 5: Curriculum Alignment: Identify/summarize the evidence (either from the presentation, artifacts, or written materials) that the vertical team presented regarding the level or degree to which there is a clear match between the written curriculum, taught curriculum and tested curriculum (including local and state assessments) that is consistent with external and internal standards, assessments and best practices, creating coherence within and across the grades. Based on the presentation, materials and artifacts, identify your top “take away’s”, that is, main ideas, themes, patterns, from this indicator. To what degree is the data/evidence sufficient to support the level of priority identified by the team? What other questions, if any, do you have regarding this indicator? ______________________________________________________________________________

4. After CPDC members complete their analysis (approximately one hour and fifteen minutes to 1/5 hours), the vertical team creates their own group to discuss what they heard. Their job as a vertical a team is to consider the feedback and establish what they consider to be their priorities.

51 02/25/14

5. While the vertical team meets, the CPDC members re-examine their list of priorities and identify for each indicator what they consider to be the top priorities, then either agree with the level of priority identified or suggest why/how it should be reconsidered.

6. Each table then reports out just their own top priorities. After all tables present, the vertical team that made the presentation is then allowed to get the “final word” to both share their list, any revisions and react to the feedback. Ultimately, the plan for revision rests with the vertical team itself.

7. Following the day’s work, the Office of the Assistant Superintendent collates the feedback in the form of a summary letter and summary report to the team. The team then uses this information to craft the subsequent development plan.

Questions regarding the process should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Superintendent or the Directors of Elementary and Secondary Education.

52 02/25/14

AA PP PP EE NN DD II CC EE SS

53 02/25/14

West Hartford Public Schools Rigorous and Relevant Unit Design Expectations

Working draft 6/19/12 Version A: Category Description Standards The standards are aligned and balanced within and/or across the unit(s)

Big ideas and essential questions represent research in teaching and learning and capture “the big ideas” of the field The “unwrapped” standards represent the teachable content and skills The level of rigor in the standards extends student thinking to higher levels and is evident in the corresponding big ideas and essential questions

Assessment Package Assessments capture the level of rigor/ depth of knowledge represented in the standards of the unit Assessments support the learning progressions and are positioned thoughtfully to complement those progressions Assessments represent multiple purposes: to inform, determine progress, and measure mastery Criteria for performances at higher levels are clearly articulated: Scoring rubrics distinguish levels of performance, accurately assess standards, provide consistency, assess higher levels of rigor, are accompanied by annotated samples

Assured Learning Experiences: (including performance tasks)

Assured learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning. They capture the level of rigor identified in the standards Assured learning experiences provide a balance of conceptual understanding, skill building and application represented in the identified levels of depth of knowledge/Bloom’s related to the standards Assured learning experiences reflect high impact instructional strategies Assured learning experiences promote the learning progressions across the grades/courses Assured learning experiences support a structure or lesson design (i.e., connected, spiraled, chronology, how it is scaffolded) Assured learning experiences promote 21st century skills (i.e., problem solving, communication, critical thinking, and adaptability). Assured learning experiences promote interdisciplinary connections

Instruction for All Core resources are identified and equip students with the skills necessary to succeed Resources support a range of culturally relevant learning needs Individual differences (learning styles, skill levels, interests) are accommodated through a variety of strategies and approaches

Overall Learning Plan The unit overall reflects the relevance of the standards The collection of assured learning experiences and assessments demonstrates the learning progressions The entire unit is coherent, with all of its components aligned and balanced The unit, as designed, will lead students to achieve the identified standards

Appendix A

54 02/25/14

Version B: Category Description Standards To what extent are the standards aligned and balanced within and/or across the

unit(s)? Do the big ideas and essential questions represent research in teaching and learning and capture “the big ideas” of the field? Do the “unwrapped” standards represent the teachable content and skills? Does the level of rigor in the standards extend student thinking to higher levels? Is the level of rigor evident in the corresponding big ideas and essential questions?

Assessment Package To what extent do the assessments capture the level of rigor/ depth of knowledge represented in the standards of the unit? To what extent do the assessments support the learning progressions? Are they positioned thoughtfully to complement those progressions? To what extent do the assessments represent multiple purposes (i.e., to inform, determine progress, and measure mastery)? To what extent are the criteria for performances at higher levels clearly articulated? (i.e., scoring rubrics distinguish levels of performance, accurately assess standards, provide consistency, assess higher levels of rigor, are accompanied by annotated samples)

Assured Learning Experiences: (including performance tasks)

Do the assured learning experiences (i.e., specific pedagogical strategies or instructional tasks) help learners perceive, process, rehearse, store and transfer new learning? Do they capture the level of rigor identified in the standards? To what extent do the assured learning experiences provide a balance of conceptual understanding, skill building and application represented in the identified levels of depth of knowledge/Bloom’s related to the standards? Do the assured learning experiences reflect high impact instructional strategies? Do the assured learning experiences promote the learning progressions across the grades/courses? Do the assured learning experiences support a structure or lesson design (i.e., connected, spiraled, chronology, how it is scaffolded)? Do the assured learning experiences promote 21st century skills (i.e., problem solving, communication, critical thinking, and adaptability)? Do the assured learning experiences promote interdisciplinary connections?

Instruction for all Are the core resources identified and do they equip students with the skills necessary to succeed? Do the resources support a range of culturally relevant learning needs? To what extent are individual differences (learning styles, skill levels, interests) accommodated through a variety of strategies and approaches?

Overall Learning Plan Does the unit overall reflect the relevance of the standards? Does the collection of assured learning experiences and assessments demonstrate the learning progressions? Is the entire unit coherent, with all of its components aligned and balanced? Will the unit, as designed, lead students to achieve the identified standards?

Appendix A

55 02/25/14

LLoonngg RRaannggee CCuurrrriiccuulluumm//PPrrooggrraamm PPllaannnniinngg CCaalleennddaarr

Curriculum Area 2008 2009

2009 2010

2010 2011

2011 2012

2012 2013

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

2016 2017

2017 2018

2018 2019

2019 2020

2020 2021

Art K-12 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Early Childhood (ELC & PK) Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 ESOL K-12 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Gifted Education Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Language Arts/English K-12 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Library/Media K-12 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Mathematics K-12 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Music K-12 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Physical Education/Health K-12 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 REACH & AIMS Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 School Counseling Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Science K-12 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Ver 6 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Social Studies K-12 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Career and Technology Education 6-12 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Theatre 9-12 Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Ver 5 Ver 6 Ver 7 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt WAAVE & ACHIEVE Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt World Language K-12 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2 Ver 3 Ver 4 Prsnt Ver 1 Ver 2

Vertical/Present Year: 1. CPDC presentation of evaluation 2. Budget priorities identified

Vertical Year: Implementation of vertical teams and changes as a result of evaluation/planning; continuous vertical review

Appendix B

56 02/25/14

Review of Services Planning Calendar*

Service Area 2008 2009

2009 2010

2010 2011

2011 2012

2012 2013

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

2016 2017

2017 2018

2018 2019

2019 2020

2020 2021

Health Services Imp 3 Imp 4 Imp 5 Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4 Prsnt Imp 1

Imp 2

Imp 3

Imp 4

Occupational/Physical Therapy Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4 Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4 Prsnt

Imp 1

Imp 2

Imp 3

Psychologists & Social Workers Imp 4 Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4 Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3

Imp 4

Prsnt

Imp 1

Special Education & Special Needs (LD/AC /ED /MH/ABA) Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2

Imp 3

Imp 4

Prsnt

Speech & Language Hearing Impaired Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4 Prsnt Imp 1 Imp 2 Imp 3 Imp 4

Prsnt

Imp 1

Imp 2

* The process for service reviews is under development. This calendar is tentative based on those results.

Appendix B

57 02/25/14

Effective Teaching Strategies based on Marzano’s meta-analysis of 35 years of educational research

Appendix C

Category of Instruction Strategies

Definition

Identifying Similarities and Differences Average Effects Size: 1.61 Percentile Gain: 45

The ability to break a concept into its similar and dissimilar characteristics allows students to understand complex problems by analyzing them in a more simple way or by comparing new knowledge to prior knowledge.

Summarizing and Note-Taking Average Effects Size: 1.00 Percentile Gain: 34

Summarizing and note-taking skills promote greater comprehension by asking students to analyze a subject to expose what’s essential and then put it in their own words. This requires substituting, deleting, keeping ideas, and having an awareness of the basic structure of the information presented. Taking more notes is better than fewer notes, though verbatim note-taking is ineffective because it does not allow time to process the information. Teachers should encourage and give time to review.

Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition Average Effects Size: 0.80 Percentile Gain: 29

Effort and recognition speak to the attitudes and beliefs of students, and teachers must show the connection between effort and achievement. Research shows students can learn to change their beliefs to emphasize effort even though not all students realize the importance of effort. According to research, recognition is most effective if it is contingent on the achievement of a certain standard. Also, symbolic recognition works better than tangible rewards.

Homework and Practice Average Effects Size: 0.77 Percentile Gain: 28

Homework provides students with the opportunity to extend their learning outside the classroom. However, research shows that the amount of homework assigned should vary by grade level and that parental involvement should be minimal. Teachers explain the purpose of homework to both the student and the parent or guardian, and teachers need to give feedback on all homework assigned. Research shows that students should adapt skills while they are learning them. Speed and accuracy are key indicators of the effectiveness of practice.

Source: Classroom Walkthrough with Reflective Practice: A Process for Outcomes-Based Instructional Improvement, teachscape, 2007 58 9/28/12

Effective Teaching Strategies based on Marzano’s meta-analysis of 35 years of educational research

Appendix C

Category of Instruction

Strategies Definition

Nonlinguistic Representations Average Effects Size: 0.75 Percentile Gain: 27

Research shows knowledge is stored in two forms: linguistic and nonlinguistic (representing knowledge in a form other than words – visually, kinesthetically, smells, tastes, etc.). The more students use both forms in the classroom, the more opportunity they have to achieve. Recently, use of nonlinguistic representations has proven to not only stimulate but also increase brain activity.

Cooperative Learning Average Effects Size: 0.73 Percentile Gain: 27

Research shows that organizing students into cooperative groups yields a positive effect on overall learning. When applying cooperative learning strategies, keep groups small and do not overuse this strategy; be systematic and consistent in your approach.

Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback Average Effects Size: 0.61 Percentile Gain: 23

Setting objectives can provide students with a direction for their learning. Goals should not be too specific; they should be easily adaptable to students’ own objectives. Research shows that feedback generally produces positive results. Teachers should manage the form that feedback takes.

Generating and Testing Hypotheses Average Effects Size: 0.61 Percentile Gain: 23

Research shows that a deductive approach (using a general rule to make a prediction) for this strategy works best. Whether a hypothesis is induced or deducted, students should clearly explain their hypotheses and conclusions.

Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers Average Effects Size: 0.59 Percentile Gain: 22

Cues, questions, and advance organizers help students use what they already know about a topic to enhance further learning. Research shows that these tools should be highly analytical, should focus on what is important, and are most effective when presented before a learning experience.

Non-fiction Writing (Reeves)

Source: Classroom Walkthrough with Reflective Practice: A Process for Outcomes-Based Instructional Improvement, teachscape, 2007 59 9/28/12

WWeesstt HHaarrttffoorrdd PPuubblliicc SScchhoooollss

AAsssseessssmmeenntt DDeeffiinneedd

Appendix D

Assessment

Assessment is an integral component of teaching and learning. It provides decision makers, including teachers, parents/guardians, students, administrators, and the general public with the information they need to monitor and advance student, teacher, school, and district progress. A key guiding principle related to assessment is that the results of all assessments will be reviewed to better meet the needs of students in attaining their learning goals. Assessments can take on various forms and the following general categorical definitions are offered to establish the general purpose of each assessment type. Formative Assessment: assessment used to evaluate students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content; the results are used by the teacher to adjust and plan instruction to improve achievement in that particular area

• Can be anything that informs instruction – can be daily, ongoing, informal, observation based, embedded within learning activities of a lesson (i.e., have students represent large whole numbers in three different ways), etc.

• Provides diagnostic information • Occurs prior to or while instruction is taking place • Is typically informal taking a small amount of time • Leads to instructional decisions that inform instruction and assist in planning for

intervention/enrichment • Is typically not used for grading purposes • Used to identify student strengths and weaknesses • Is an integral part of the teaching-learning process • Student feedback is provided very quickly – on the spot or within a 1 day turnaround

Interim Assessment: assessment designed to measure progress during the course of instruction with results used to tailor instruction to meet all students’ needs and to identify students in need of additional support or extensions to learning

• More formal than formative assessments • Can be used as an early warning of performance on later high stakes tests • Can cover some or all of the school year curriculum • Can be analyzed and used to identify programmatic questions • Provides a “benchmark” for assessing learning • Is sometimes used for grading purposes • Should be administered often enough to provide timely feedback on student learning but spaced

widely enough so there is time to alter instruction and produce measurable progress before the next assessment

• Can be analyzed to provide some diagnostic information • Generally occurs after 4 – 9 weeks of instruction

Summative Assessment: assessment used to document student achievement at the end of a unit or course, or to evaluate the end product of a learning activity or unit of study

• Occurs after the material has been taught

60 9/28/12



Appendix D

• Can include graded tests and quizzes, final exams, unit tests, graded performances, CMT/CAPT/district year end assessments

• May be used for grading purposes • Can be used to provide some diagnostic information

Selecting methods of assessment*

There is a wealth of assessment methods used to assess student achievement, but what factors should guide teacher selection of assessment methods?

The primary goal is to choose a method which most effectively assesses the objectives of the unit of study. In addition, choice of assessment methods should be aligned with the overall aims of the program, and may include the development of disciplinary skills (such as critical evaluation or problem solving) and support the development of other competencies (such as particular communication or team skills.)

Hence, when choosing assessment items, it is useful to consider both the immediate task of assessing student learning in a particular unit of study, and the broader aims of the program and the qualities of the student. Ideally this is something you do with your colleagues so there is a planned assessment strategy across a program.

When considering assessment methods, it is particularly useful to think first about what qualities or abilities you are seeking to engender in the learners. Nightingale et al (1996) provide eight broad categories of learning outcomes which are listed below. Within each outcome category some methods are suggested.

1. Thinking critically and making judgments (Developing arguments, reflecting, evaluating, assessing, judging) Essay Report Journal Letter of Advice to.... (about policy, public health matters .....) Present a case for an interest group Prepare a committee briefing paper for a specific meeting Book review (or article) for a particular journal Write a newspaper article for a foreign newspaper Comment on an article's theoretical perspective 2. Solving problems and developing plans (Identifying problems, posing problems, defining problems, analyzing data, reviewing, designing experiments, planning, applying information)

61 9/28/12



Appendix D

Problem scenario Group Work Work-based problem Prepare a committee of inquiry report Draft a research bid to a realistic brief Analyze a case Conference paper (or notes for a conference paper plus annotated bibliography) 3. Performing procedures and demonstrating techniques (Computation, taking readings, using equipment, following laboratory procedures, following protocols, carrying out instructions) Demonstration Role Play Make a video (write script and produce/make a video) Produce a poster Lab report Prepare an illustrated manual on using the equipment, for a particular audience Observation of real or simulated professional practice 4. Managing and developing oneself (Working co-operatively, working independently, learning independently, being self-directed, managing time, managing tasks, organizing) Journal Portfolio Learning Contract Group work 5. Accessing and managing information (Researching, investigating, interpreting, organizing information, reviewing and paraphrasing information, collecting data, searching and managing information sources, observing and interpreting) Annotated bibliography Project Dissertation Applied task Applied problem 6. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding (Recalling, describing, reporting, recounting, recognizing, identifying, relating & interrelating) Written examination Oral examination Essay Report Comment on the accuracy of a set of records Devise an encyclopedia entry Produce an A - Z of ...

62 9/28/12



Appendix D

Write an answer to a client's question Short answer questions: True/False/ Multiple Choice Questions (paper-based or computer-

aided-assessment) 7. Designing, creating, performing (Imagining, visualizing, designing, producing, creating, innovating, performing) Portfolio Performance Presentation Hypothetical Projects 8. Communicating (One and two-way communication; communication within a group, verbal, written and non-verbal communication; arguing, describing, advocating, interviewing, negotiating, presenting; using specific written forms) Written presentation (essay, report, reflective paper etc.) Oral presentation Group work Discussion/debate/role play Participate in a 'Court of Inquiry' Presentation to camera Observation of real or simulated professional practice

Variety in assessment It is interesting to note that the eight learning outcomes listed above would be broadly expected of any graduating learner from a higher education program. Yet, when choosing assessment items, we tend to stay with the known or the 'tried and true methods', because they seem to have the ring of academic respectability, or possibly because it was the way we were assessed ourselves.

When choosing methods it is important to offer variety to learners in the way they demonstrate their learning, and to help them to develop a well-rounded set of abilities by the time they graduate.

63 9/28/12



Appendix D

References Nightingale, P., Te Wiata, I.T., Toohey, S., Ryan, G., Hughes, C., Magin, D. (1996) Assessing

Learning in Universities Professional Development Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia.

Brown, S., Rust, C., Gibbs, G. (1994) Strategies for Diversifying Assessment Oxford Centre for Staff Development, UK.

*Adapted by Lee Dunn from: Morgan, Chris (1999) Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia. (Unpublished material for Southern Cross University booklet 'Assessing Students') http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/methods.html

64 9/28/12

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/methods.html

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy Ainsworth, L. (2010). Rigorous curriculum design. Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press. Caine, R.N., and Caine, G. (1991). Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bureau of Curriculum and Instruction (2006). A guide to curriculum development: Purposes, practices, and procedures. Retrieved from Connecticut State Department of Education website: http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currgde_generic/curguide_generic.htm Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Research Council Committee on Learning Research and Practice Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Glatthorn, A. A., Carr, J. F., and Harris, D. E. (2001). Curriculum Handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum Renewal. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Squires, D. A. (2005). Aligning and balancing the standards-based curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Teachscape (2007). Classroom walkthrough with reflective practice: A process for outcomes-based instructional improvement. San Francisco, CA: Teachscape.

65 9/28/12

five-year plan for curriculum review · curriculum review and renewal plan for ... the evaluation...

Documents